Russophobia Files (5)

same bed, different nightmares

I could have simply entitled this piece American Foreign Policy for the Last 80 Years and let the cartoon speak for itself. But that wouldn’t be any fun. Words are needed—and in the case of this piece, probably too many words. When I look at the USA today, I see that the real divide is not between red and blue, or at least not at the Washington DC end of things. Their goals are largely identical, they just have their ballistic missiles aimed at different targets.

Admittedly there is a difference in style: one side prefers bellicosity while the other engages in smug condescension. Choose your poison. I find that the real divide—or at least the two poles to which our political intuitions are pulled—is rather between Populism and Elitism. At least for me, Populism carries a certain amount of baggage, so you may prefer the split to be characterized as between the Elites and Everybody Else.

My stance has always been to oppose elitism whenever I catch it casting a glance down its long nose. Much of this comes from my upbringing, and particularly, my dad, and is best relegated to a long footnote, below.¹ But suffice to say, my radar has always been finely-tuned to detect either academic, social, or economic pretense. And these days, elitism is on my mind, a lot.

Both of our political parties practice it. Despite their Populist sloganeering, the Right is functionally elitist every bit as much as the Left. If you do not do as you are told, if you question the fundamentals, then the old guard will quickly cast you out as a pariah. Interestingly, the growth in this sector seems to be among the pariahs, as the Establishment is too preoccupied with keeping its remaining adherents from looking behind the curtain.

To those castaways, the Left offers no safe harbor at all. If you listen closely to the Loyal Opposition, there is little outrage at what is being done, just hand-wringing over the fact that they are not the ones directing it, and all-too-obvious anticipation of the day when they will again. As much as you detest the ham-fisted way the GOP mismanages most everything, the voice from the Left still repels. “We know what is best for you. Our information is truth. We are smarter and better informed, so do what we say, or suffer our scorn and judgement” (a judgment worthy of the Puritans from which no repentance is ever sufficient.)

This is weighing on my mind now for two reasons:

• a return to Russia in coming weeks, and

• a truly bizarre confrontation from earlier in the year.

  ***

I recently took notice of an online kerfuffle involving Candace Owens’ vacation to Russia. Let me just say that I don’t follow her, and have no strong opinions about her one way or the other. I know enough to recognize her as one of the dissident voices on the Right, in the camp with Tucker, MTG, the Pauls, etc. I am happy that she went to Russia to see for herself, just as I would be pleased for anyone to pursue this course. Apparently some critics, however, make it their business to follow her every move. A young writer for The Tablet who posted on the Free Press was Johnny-on-the-spot with his condemnation. It is a classic screed, chock-full of ad hominems. He starts:

Russia? Even for adventurous travelers, Russia is not at the top of many must-see lists in the summer of 2026. It is under heavy Western sanctions. Its major cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, have been subject to semi-regular drone attacks in recent weeks. The State Department advises Americans not to travel there, and warns them that if they do go anyway, they will have their electronic devices hacked and may be kidnapped and held for ransom by the country’s all-powerful security services. So why visit?

Crap like this works for many people, but I will address his points, one by one:

1. Must-see lists are overrated. You can be a tourist standing like cattle awaiting slaughter in the long, hot over-priced queues in Paris, Rome, Venice, or Munich, or you can be an unharried traveler who discovers beauty at every turn in Russia.

2. Sanctions: we should all be so-sanctioned. They have only forced Russia to be self-reliant and self-sufficient in ways other countries can only dream of being. Slower growth in late 2025 and early 2026 was intentional, to address inflationary concerns. There are no shortages, as in the bad old days of the late Soviet period. Measured in purchasing power parity, Russia’s economy is the strongest in Europe, at least according to the IMF. Meanwhile, the leaders of the EU are crafting their 21st sanctions package, while simultaneously looking to reduce public services even further in order to ramp-up their military to address a threat from Russia that doesn’t exist. (On a personal note, I despise the sanctions mentality, on every level. This strong-arming has replaced the old respected ways of diplomacy. May they die soon!)

3. These “semi-regular drone attacks” mostly do not get through, as opposed to the drones Russia is sending Ukraine’s way. The few that do, directed at civilians, hit around the periphery and do not impact life in St. Petersburg or Moscow, according to recent travelers there; a few pinpricks, nothing more. I understand that they have been noticable around Smolensk, much closer to the border with Ukraine.

4. The State Department—who believes the State Department? You cannot expect truth-telling from the Belly of the Beast. I went to Syria in 2008, partially because the State Department told me not to do so. It was a defining event in my life. During my visit to Russia last year, I had no problem with my electronic devices, and felt safer than in American cities. My understanding about people who get in trouble in Russia is that they are either, a) meddling in domestic politics and/or, b) trying to transport something in or out of the country that they should not. In my case, absent-minded septuagenarians attract little suspicion or concern.

5. So why visit? Here’s why: History and Beauty. Russians love, cherish, and preserve their rich history. To a historian, they are my kindred spirits. And Beauty? Just pick one: architecture, churches, art, music, dance, literature, nature.

That’s why, Mr. Know-it-All; who is, in fact, 32-year old Georgia-born, New York City based Park MacDougald. The depressing thing about his body of work, is the fact that someone so young is so captive to these old Boomer tropes. He accuses Owens of lying about her trip being a vacation, as she was also a speaker at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Oh, that’s damning, isn’t it? Surely no one has ever combined business and pleasure on one airline ticket before. The forum (SPIEF) is unknown in the West, receiving no coverage whatsoever, but is a really big event for most everyone else, that being 87.5% of the world’s population.

The writer labeled SPIEF as a “‘recruitment venue’ for the Russian security service,” his source being someone in “the Ukrainian press.” But of course. And Owens delivering a speech there means to him that she is being recruited as a Russian asset. MacDougald’s analysis is droll indeed. Our own security service—the CIA—is a known purveyor of destabilization, regime change, invalidation of elections, decapitation strikes on leaders (our own, if need be), and, objectively, the fount of much of the mischief and mayhem in the world for the last 80 years. This, of course, is just business as it should be to the likes of MacDougald. And speaking of assets, what is Keir Starmer, Mark Rutte, Kaja Kallas, Volodymyr Zelenskii, King Hussein, the leaders of Lebanon, even Benjamin Netanyahu, if not American assets? For a bit of perspective, consider the following thought exercise:

Over the last 25 years, who, exactly, has lied to us? Or, being charitable, who has intentionally misled us?

DJT, Rubio, Bessent, Hegseth? Or Vladimir Putin?

Blinken, Sullivan, Harris, Biden? Or Vladimir Putin?

DJT, Pence, Bolton? Or Vladimir Putin?

Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Rice, Power? Or Vladimir Putin?

Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, Petraeus? Or Vladimir Putin?

Interestingly, Vladimir Putin hosted an hours-long press conference attended by the few Western journalists who chose to attend. When was the last time any Western leader did that?

Young MacDougald delights in the civil war within MAGA ranks, assigning Candace Owens to the conspiratorial wing of the movement, characterized by their emphasis on the alleged influence of Zionists and neocons in the party. If this makes one “conspiratorial,” then sign me up. He puts the words Zionists and neocons in air-quotes, implying that they are fantasies and illusions rather than tangible realities. One can debate the extent of their influence on Republican and Democratic politics, but to cast doubt on their very existence is not the mark of a journalist, but of an ideologically-bound hack.

MacDougald continues to expound upon the extent of the conspiracy. Surely, only one entity has the resources to mount such a broadly-based and deceptive campaign (other than, of course, our own security state apparatus). He answers his own question: of course it can be no one but Russia, and its evil mastermind, Vladimir Putin. MacDougald names his source, in this case: Laura Loomer. I mean, even Republicans do not quote her. She says, “I don’t think conservatives realize how much Russian propaganda we have been fed over the last few years.” Well, there you have it. Who can argue with substantive arguments like that?²

The Conspiracy

MacDougald’s worldview is simply Boris and Natasha updated for the 21st Century, forgetting that Rocky, Bullwinkle, Boris and Natasha was a high-brow spoof, directed more at our Cold War mentality than that of the Russians. His piece reads like a laundry list of neoliberal boogeymen: Alex Jones (of course), Tucker Carlson, Alexander Dugin, etc. For Tucker, he has this to say: “A full list of Carlson’s pro-Kremlin falsehoods would be tedious both to write and to read…” Well, I suggest that MacDougald should let me be the judge of that, for having read his entire article, I can clearly deal with tedium.

He treats Multipolarity as something cooked-up in the brain of Alexander Dugin, and indeed, sometimes puts the word in air quotes. MacDougald writes that multipolarity was “popularized by Dugin, that America should cede global influence to Russia and China.” Pay close attention to how he characterizes it. For him, it is some sort of zero-sum game, where dominance is transferred from the U.S. to Russia and China.

In fact, Multipolarity is already the way the world is beginning to work, or at least everyone but the Collective West: not dominated by Russia, or by China, or by the U.S. I believe the Trump Administration understands this while still utilizing the language of unipolarity; their current foreign policy being either, a) one last Hail Mary pass, or b) an attempt to position the U.S. for the strongest position possible once the post-unipolar world takes final shape.

Just for fun, MacDougald reveals that Michael Flynn is a lobbyist for Republika Srpska (so what?), and the absolutely essential reporting of Max Blumenthal is that of a “pro-Russian agitator.” In another article, the heroic and tireless Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is dismissed as simply a “Communist Chinese asset.” His tactic is painfully clear: any independent voice who questions the necessity of our constant state of war and the aims of our Security State is dismissed as a Russian or Chinese asset or agitator, financed by the “paranoid” Russian political system.

I dislike binary choices, as there are usually other options, but here is one of mine:

1. Either the U.S. is the force of good in the world as we have always been told, and any naysaying is simply part of a vast Russian plot, or

2. We have some real systemic problems in this country which cannot be blamed on Russia.

***

In imitation of my dad, I have tried to cultivate friendships with a broad range of people. They reflect my various interests: my church friends front and center, some co-workers, my close cousins, past traveling companions, my literary associations here and abroad, and fellow members of historical societies, etc. There is little overlap in these groups, nor should there be. Significantly, there are no associations defined by political leanings. I have always taken comfort in the fact that my friends on the Right tagged me a wild-eyed liberal, while my Progressive friends considered me a radical reactionary. And that is exactly where I wanted to be.³

Only after traveling to Russia last year have some of these friendships become frayed. In broad terms, my friends on the Right have been curious about what I did. My friends on the Left are not the least bit interested. This attitude came into sharper focus early this year when I learned that political alignment supersedes friendship. It seems my “politics” was a problem, though I never knew I had any. I hesitate to write too much about it, as I am sincerely trying to be less defensive and more open to criticism.

I have been writing on this forum, in one fashion or another for almost 21 years. In searching through the archives for something, I recently read a piece I wrote after Vladimir Putin’s speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. I was surprised at how well it conformed to my current thinking. So it seems I have not been overly swayed by current trends or conspiracy theories, but have maintained a generally consistent position for over 25 years. This was allowed to pass, I suppose, by some of Left-leaning friends, without comment. But traveling to Russian, validating Vladimir Putin in their eyes, was simply beyond the Pale.⁴

In late winter, I received a collaborative email from learned friends who took me to the woodshed, so to speak. The body of the email was a bit of a screed, a series of ad hominem attacks, expressing incredulity that I would go to Russia while Vladimir Putin was in charge. All sorts of links were provided to instruct me in the error of my ways. I did not open a single one. To add insult to injury, they included a slap at my church. I will take criticism from those who are serious about their own faith; I resent attacks from those who are not. The email contains every stereotypical complaint associated with academic pretense and elitism: there was arrogance, there was presumption, and there was extreme condescension.

My son took it harder than I did, exclaiming “How dare they!” I responded to the email as nicely as I could, but firmly telling them to cut it out. And I did make note that their attack on my church was particularly out of line. But of course, this fell on deaf ears. The Left is almost never perceptive, just assuredly right. And so, I received another shorter email about a month later, this time with an renewed attack on my church. My response was blunt and to the point, informing them that they had crossed a line with the first email, and to send no more of this sort of thing.

What has bothered me ever since is not the fact that they would send it, but the reason why they felt they had to do it. Why was our friendship of so much lesser value than being politically aligned? It has reminded me of a thing or two about the Left. When I was growing-up, those on the Left were the dissidents—perhaps to too great an extent for their own good. Those days are long gone. You will search in vain for much life in the anti-war Left these days. There is no room for dissent, only That Which Must Be Believed. I am slow to cut people off, and I like to leave the door open, so to speak. But in all honesty, I am assuming these friendships are now dead.

The reason why they wrote it brings me back to Park MacDougald. Looking back, the foundational tropes he employed, the ad hominems, the very tone, is the same as what I received in my email. The reason my acquaintances wrote to me is that their Truth is that of Park MacDougald, the Free Press, the Financial Times, CNN, the Economist, the BBC, Anne Applebaum, Timothy Snyder, Richard Blumenthal, our Security State, etc. My actions demonstrate that I am a non-believer in their Received Wisdom. What distinguishes them from the elites on the Right is their puritanism; where there is no forgiveness, only judgement. There can be no dissent.⁵ Thank you, no; I am fine aligning with Everybody Else.

I do not believe that our country is intellectually or institutionally capable of shaking free from the hold the elites (Right and Left) have on our government. It will have to happen the hard way, as the practical implications of multipolarity become impossible to deny over the remainder of this century.⁶ In the meantime, I am free to go ahead and adjust my thinking to the new realities. I welcome them—they are not frightening in the least.

(As always, the good stuff is in the footnotes.)

1. My dad built a successful blue-collar business in a self-important city in East Texas. He prospered and invested the profits in real estate, farmland and cattle. Professionally, he moved easily among the hot-shots of our city: bankers, attorneys, real estate developers, and the oil rich, etc. And yet he never once tried to play their game. My dad dressed and spoke plainly, he never expressed the slightest interest in society affairs, and most importantly, never considered himself to be any man’s inferior. He was at home among all classes and races, though probably most comfortable sitting on a truck tailgate in the middle of a hay field. I grew up in the country, though we lived within the district of the social middle and high school (back in the days before private academies), giving me an opportunity to observe elitism the hard way, close up. At home, we chuckled among ourselves about the self-importance and pretense around us. We were suspicious of people in suits, and not comfortable in siuations that called for them. And so, now at 71 years of age, I find these instincts have never left me.

2. I love the irony here. MacDougald and The Free Press are using DJT’s most loyal toadie in Congress to make their common case against dissidents to That Which Must Be Believed about Russia.

3. My BETO bumper sticker was long-seared into the memories of my friends on the Right; they mistaking my aversion to Ted Cruz for being soft-headedly Democratic. And on the other hand, while I have never voted for DJT, my friends on the Left do not understood why I reject their offerings as well.

4. I do not get hung-up on other country’s governments. Russia has their own form of representative government, one that suits them. It is the height of End-of-History arrogance to assume that our template must be used for a country so very different than our own. Besides, we have always supported, and continue to support, real dictators. This is a fact beyond argumentation.

5. A similar thing happened in 2018, with a tense confrontation within a school bureaucracy. The attitude was exactly the same. I had not opposed them in any way, but my actions had quietly demonstrated that I rejected their Truth, and there could be no dissent from That Which Must Be Believed. Fortunately, my threat of legal action stymied their plans for me.

6. I’m afraid this will be a tough time for Central and South America. Unable to project our control on other continents, we will fall back to our default position of strong-arming our own hemisphere.